Today in Supreme Court History: June 9, 1970

6/9/1970: Justice Harry Blackmun (no relation) takes oath.

Justice Harry Blackmun

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (decided June 9, 1977): statute prohibiting sale of non-prescription contraceptives, and contraceptives to minors, violated Due Process right to privacy/liberty (you can see Brennan’s hard work here -- cobbling together a majority but with fractured opinions)

Randon v. Toby, 52 U.S. 493 (decided June 9, 1851): fact that loan was used to buy slaves which had been illegally imported from Africa to Texas did not make it an “illegal contract” such that plaintiff could not sue on the loan; Court compared this argument to a man who won’t pay his tailor because the importer had smuggled the cloth

Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (decided June 9, 2016): judge must recuse himself in death penalty appeal because he was the D.A. who brought the prosecution

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (decided June 9, 2011): patents are presumed valid (35 U.S.C. §282); defendant claiming invalidity must prove by clear and convincing evidence (i4i had developed document editing method independent of metacodes; original source code had been destroyed, so evidence adduced as to possible waiver via prior sale) (Microsoft eventually lost; it continued to infringe, but i4i lost motion to reopen action and cite for contempt, see 398 F. Supp. 3d 90, 2019)

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (decided June 9, 2016): Double Jeopardy bars prosecutions of the same conduct (illegal gun sale) by Puerto Rico and by the federal government; unlike a State, P.R. is not a separate “sovereign”

Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (decided June 9, 2016): District Court judge has power to recall jury and instruct them to re-deliberate after they returned an impermissibly baseless verdict (finding $0 in damages in auto injury case even though both sides had stipulated to at least $10,136)

CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (decided June 9, 2014): “superfund” law (CERCLA) preempts state statutes of limitations but not state statutes of repose; North Carolina law barring actions brought more than 10 years after last culpable act (sale of property) applied to dismiss suit against polluter who had sold the property 24 years previously (statute of limitations by contrast began to run from date of damage/discovery)

Omaha & C.B.S.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 230 U.S. 324 (decided June 9, 1913): street railroads (run not on land owned by the railroad company but on public street as an aid to street traffic) did not fit definition of “railroad” in the ICC Act of 1887 and therefore ICC had no power to set rates

United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (decided June 9, 1977): speedy trial requirement of Sixth Amendment does not apply to time between crime and indictment (here, 18 months) even if delay is unexplained (opinion written by Marshall!)

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (decided June 9, 1980): owner of private property to which public is invited cannot restrict free speech (here, shopping center in which students had set up table protesting “a United Nations resolution against Zionism”) (this must have been the infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism -- ironic because some early Zionists were antisemites, who were glad to pack Jews off to faraway Palestine; even the Nazis considered it at one point)

[David Nieporent]

owner of private property to which public is invited cannot restrict free speech

Not the best way to characterize the opinion. The holding was that California's law prohibiting this was constitutional, not that malls can't do this.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Technically you are correct. But the California constitution’s freedom of speech guarantee (as interpreted by the California Supreme Court) would not have been approved by the Court if it did not survive Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment attack. The point was: constitutionally you can’t exclude.

When I was in law school Pruneyard was a controversial decision because it appeared to protect the abusive behavior of Operation Rescue around abortion places.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Looking at it again I see that you are correct. Will rephrase.

[Dilan Esper]

Yeah David is right. Hudgens v. NLRB rejected the argument you were ascribing to the case.

[SRG]

And surprise surprise, Thomas dissented in Williams.

[F.D. Wolf]

Williams was not an appeal per se, but a post-conviction habeas petition, the fifth (four state, one federal) Williams had pursued in the 26 years since his conviction had become final. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille had been the Philadelphia District Attorney from 1986 to 1991. From the record, his only involvement in the case was signing off on the prosecuting attorney's request to pursue the death penalty.

The Court of Common Pleas granted Williams' fourth petition, and the state appealed to the state supreme court. Williams filed a motion for Chief Justice Castille to recuse himself or to submit the motion to the whole court. Castille denied both motions without explanation. A 6-0 state supreme court reversed the lower court. Castille joined the majority opinion and authored a separate concurrence. Two justices concurred in the result without opinion.

Castille would retire two weeks later, having reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. (Pennsylvania has since increased it to 75.) Somewhat curiously, this would have been Williams' fourth appearance before Castille, but the first time he had requested his recusal.

In a 5-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. On remand, Williams was re-sentenced to life in prison.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! Will make the correction.

[Kleppe]

Why would anyone think you two are related? You spell and pronounce your names differently.

[Michael P]

Spelling of names is sometimes adjusted, either by the person or by an official (e.g. immigration officer), and transliterations may have multiple reasonable options.

An uncle and nephew who used to work at my employer intentionally pronounced their shared last name differently; the uncle and his brother (the nephew's father) did not get along, and this was one way to differentiate themselves. The difference was comparable to "Deh-Santis" vs "Dee-Santis", to pick an en-vogue example.

[Frank Drackman]

Not many people know this, but it was "Josh Drackman" before he changed it.

[Frank Drackman]

Judge Blackman should have been aborted in his first Trimester on the court.

[bernard11]

judge must recuse himself in death penalty appeal because he was the D.A. who brought the prosecution

It took the Supreme Court to figure this out?

[hoppy025]

But if he didn't recuse himself, and he reversed the conviction or death sentence, you leftists would be applauding his courage.

Fact it, to you people:

- Guns are bad
- Transgenders and other sexual deviants are good
- Blacks are heroes and should be given everything.
- Punishing criminals is bad, and executing them is doubly bad.

Any way you to get to the above is good to you people.

[Krychek_2]

What color is the sky on your planet?

[CJColucci]

Nothing like the Hypothetical Hypocrisy card, a cheap and easy play.

[hoppy025]

Let me know when you or your people support criminalizing gay men shooting HIV laden fluids into other men. If not, then shut up.

[CJColucci]

I am not answerable to your obsessions. Consider therapy.

[apedad]

"Justice Harry Blackmun (no relation but I wish we were related because then I would have been invited to Harvard Alumni events, Supreme Court soirees, and many other "insider" receptions, and not have my Social web page blank: https://joshblackman.com/) takes oath."

FTFY

[not guilty]

In that Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), reaffirmed a constitutional right of privacy encompassing an individual right to be free of unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, id., at 685, I wonder how long it will remain good law under the current SCOTUS regime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can't imagine today's Court arriving at the same result.

[hoppy025]

Only a liberal could think that one doesn't have a private right to carry a concealed handgun, but does have a private right to kill a third trimester fetus and to ejaculate into another man's rear.